Before choosing a business-sale adviser, decide what you want the sale to accomplish. Retirement, a continuing role and a particular kind of buyer are different starting points. BDC’s buyer-selection guidance puts the owner’s objectives first and recommends adviser experience suited to the business’s size and industry.
Write those objectives in a short brief. Describe your business and what matters to you after the sale, including the involvement you hope to retain or leave behind. This gives the adviser a concrete owner situation to discuss, rather than an invitation to assume that price is your only priority.
Auxo’s US-oriented selection guide recommends common information and explicit trade-offs when comparing proposals.
For example, wanting to remain involved is different from wanting to leave day-to-day management. State that preference before discussing potential buyers. The adviser can then explain how their relevant experience fits the sale you want to pursue.
Identify the work and its handoffs
MNP’s article for owners selling professional practices describes tasks including preparing a business-information package, working with pre-approved potential buyers and managing buyer contact. These are useful examples of work to discuss, not a promise that every adviser supplies the same service. MNP also describes a substantial adviser workload during a practice sale.
In that practice-sale context, packaging information and handling prospective purchasers are concrete activities, not just a general promise of support. A proposal might describe one clearly and say little about the other. Keep the task visible when discussing the service: preparation of the package, buyer vetting or management of the contact process.
KPMG Canada’s service page lists corporate finance, transaction services, valuation and M&A tax. A menu is not your mandate. Ask which output is included, who supplies it and which work needs separate scope.
Stillwater’s Canadian adviser-selection article reminds sellers that preparation requires their time and information. Help with the sale does not make your contribution disappear.
Check who will actually be involved
Stillwater distinguishes participation in a transaction from leading and closing it. Ask what the proposed people actually did on relevant previous sales. A firm’s transaction history and an individual’s responsibilities are different pieces of evidence; neither a job title nor a deal logo supplies the whole answer.
FE International’s US-oriented technology M&A article suggests naming the daily lead, clarifying buyer-call and negotiation involvement, and putting the escalation route in writing. Ask a former client how the team behaved during a difficult part of a completed sale.
During a reference conversation, move beyond whether the client was pleased. Ask who participated when something became difficult and what that person actually did. A specific account of behaviour is more useful to this question than another general endorsement.
Houlihan Lokey’s US director guide also discusses day-to-day fit and relevant experience. Its commercial observation is that an adviser’s role varies with the transaction and management’s sophistication. That is useful context for a proposal discussion, not a Canadian legal standard.
Stillwater suggests asking how the adviser would handle a known weakness in your business. Use the answer to explore their approach; it is not an objective test that proves someone’s integrity.
Ask about relationships and the response
Ask about other mandates, buyer relationships and their handling, as Auxo suggests.
Stifel Canada’s disclosure offers one concrete distinction: its integrated dealer policy describes avoidance, controls and disclosure. A relationship and the proposed response are separate things to understand. This is one firm’s policy, not a rule for every sale adviser. Recording a disclosed relationship does not establish that its handling is adequate.
Juniper’s proposals and changed circumstances
Everything in the following examples is fictional. Leah owns Juniper Controls, a 28-person manufacturer. She wants an external sale so she can retire. Her controller, Sam, can devote six hours each week to sale preparation alongside routine reporting. Leah has already assembled a short company description and her retirement objectives. Her folder contains monthly reports, an organization chart and a list of products. It has no consolidated financial presentation for prospective purchasers.
Both firms receive the same brief. Alder’s first proposal describes full support and senior oversight. Birch’s first proposal names Maya as the daily lead but says Juniper will supply a buyer-ready financial package. Neither proposal includes a timetable for preparing that package. Both are dated October 6 in this invented example.
Leah asks Alder who will do the daily work and handle escalation. Alder’s October 8 reply names Jordan for routine work, Alex for negotiations and escalation, and a Friday update. It also says Jordan will prepare the presentation materials using information supplied by Juniper. The reply does not state Jordan’s current workload.
A former client describes Jordan’s participation when a buyer challenged a forecast. In this fictional reference, Jordan organized the supporting material and Alex led the discussion. Past participation does not establish Jordan’s current availability.
Leah asks Birch to clarify package preparation. Birch replies that its mandate includes a readiness review, while Juniper prepares the financial package. Sam confirms that he expects to do that work within his available preparation time. This is an assumption in the example, not a general estimate of the time such work takes.
The trade-off: Alder offers preparation help with capacity unanswered; Birch relies on Juniper’s preparation. Neither is an automatic winner.
Now change one fact. On October 12, Sam resigns. Juniper’s temporary replacement can maintain routine reporting but cannot prepare the buyer package. Leah’s retirement objective, the proposed sale and both October 6 proposals remain unchanged. No new buyer has appeared and neither adviser has started work.
The package previously allocated to Sam is now an unassigned task. Leah asks who could prepare the package and supply its inputs. Alder sends an October 14 workplan naming Jordan for package preparation and identifying requested inputs. Birch has not answered by Leah’s October 16 comparison date.
A named contributor still does not establish an agreed obligation. Houlihan Lokey stresses mutual clarity about services in the engagement. Leah can take the revised workplan and the unanswered scope question into that review, rather than treat a proposal clarification as a completed agreement.
Keep the comparison
Keep answers, unknowns and trade-offs together in a separate record for each proposal.
Objective: Leah’s external sale and retirement.
Proposal and output: Alder, October 6 proposal plus October 14 workplan; financial package preparation.
People and escalation: Jordan for routine work; Alex for negotiation and escalation.
Owner input: Juniper’s existing reports and the additional inputs requested in the workplan; preparation capacity changed after Sam’s departure.
Evidence: dated replies and the former client’s account of Jordan’s participation. A reference describes prior work, not a future commitment.
Relationship and proposed handling: no answer recorded in this fictional file; the entry remains open.
Unresolved question: Jordan’s present availability. Birch’s additional preparation response is also still missing from its separate record.
The record identifies whose time and information are still needed. Before offering inputs that nobody at Juniper can prepare, Leah can identify that limitation explicitly. Stillwater’s reminder about seller participation remains relevant even when an adviser offers substantial help.
For general information and education, not legal, tax, investment or valuation advice. Examples are illustrative and do not predict your business’s value, financing terms or sale outcome. Consult qualified advisers about your situation.
Subscribe to Deal Flow Canada for practical owner guides and Canadian deal updates.